On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
didn't have this.
Why should we believe anything you write
when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
Jan
What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
you guys in this relativity forum.
Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
Are you people nuts?..
On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and >>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck >>>> didn't have this.
Why should we believe anything you write
when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
Jan
What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
you guys in this relativity forum.
Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them. >> Are you people nuts?..
Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
For example, even asteroids get names.
Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
Jan
No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
away to stuff unrelated to physics.
Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
As far as I know he never named
names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
"history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as physics concepts were concerned.
Physics history is a humanities field.
It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
On 4/17/25 2:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous
respect and
influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). >>>>>>> Planck
didn't have this.
Why should we believe anything you write
when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
Jan
What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand >>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the >>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as >>>>> well
as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on >>>>> them.
Are you people nuts?..
Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
For example, even asteroids get names.
Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten, >>>>
Jan
No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone >>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students >>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
Of course he did. It was Newton who started the tradition
of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
and not Leinbiz's.
As far as I know he never named
names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
"history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as >>> physics concepts were concerned.
That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
(who was a small man)
See Gleick's biography for more on it.
Physics history is a humanities field.
All history is.
It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
Then why call it 'history of physics'?
Jan
Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books.
Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when Physfit's dick is near.
I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list them
and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian Ebne
Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the name. Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. Alhazen's own works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only physics concepts.
I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.
Here, let me throw DeepSeek at you. This is what DeepSeek knows:
Key Names in Opticks:
(beginning of the quote):
Isaac Newton – The author refers to himself in the first person
when describing experiments.
Robert Hooke – Newton briefly mentions Hooke's work on diffraction (though he avoids naming him directly in some contentious passages due
to their rivalry).
Christiaan Huygens – Cited regarding wave-based theories of light (Newton disagreed with his ideas).
René Descartes – Critiqued for his theories on light and refraction.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Not directly named in Opticks, but
their later disputes over calculus influenced Newton's later queries in
the book.
John Locke – A friend of Newton; some ideas in Opticks align with Locke's empiricism (though Locke isn't named explicitly).
On 4/18/25 3:45 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous
respect and influence from the European physics community (and >>>>>>>> also abroad). Planck didn't have this.
Why should we believe anything you write
when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
Jan
What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand >>>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the >>>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what. >>>>>>
And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as >>>>>> well as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human
names on them.
Are you people nuts?..
Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
For example, even asteroids get names.
Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten, >>>>>
Jan
No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone >>>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students >>>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
Of course he did. It was Newton who started the tradition
of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
and not Leinbiz's.
As far as I know he never named
names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
"history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as >>>> physics concepts were concerned.
That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
(who was a small man)
See Gleick's biography for more on it.
Physics history is a humanities field.
All history is.
It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
Then why call it 'history of physics'?
Jan
Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books.
Do I have to remind this to you?
Come on, thePrincipia is in the first place a self-erected pedestal, created for posing on top of it as an absolute genius
by being as difficult and as obscure as possible.
The same things can be said if much simpler ways.
Jan
?.. Do you heavily drink while in usenet?
I refuse to comment.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 60:45:42 |
| Calls: | 9,762 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,744 |
| Messages: | 6,185,585 |